--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

That's interesting, because I have never felt lonely being the only evo on a hostile site.

Not lonely, but it can be damned hard to offer sensible, thought-out and researched answers to a large, baying crowd detecting fresh meat who consider the entire gamut fair game and themselves as expert as one would need to be. Trying to be honest and accurate - and being called a cowardly liar for your trouble! - takes a lot more effort than just saying stuff.

it's important to remember that it's all about the LULZ

pretending like there is some sort of substance to critique therefore good faith internetting discussion is possible with ID creationists is a huge error IMO

that's a very different thing from fisking the tard.

look at wes on dembski: †fisks the tard, brutally and without remorse, in print, with citations and leaves it up for dembski to run away from.

that's a totally different from trying to get KF to admit he is a lying dooshbag on UD where he can be lord of the flies gilligan bob marley gk chesterton version.

So, although I may have not been as clear on this in this thread as I was in my head, i think fisking the tard is great. †i guess what i am getting at is that there are a lot of smart people wasting a great deal of time and effort to fruitlessly yet systematically expose the Wizard in the arguments made by some very obtuse, dishonest and stubborn stupid fucking creationists.

And I have done it too. †And I hopefully will in the future. †But I am about convinced that "wasting a great deal of time and effort" is a pretty good descriptor, if your objective is to detard more tards.

oh shit this is now framing

One can see it as a two-way troll. There's no substance on their side, but it can be fun to stir the nest and watch 'em scurry. They, equally, think that is exactly what they are doing with the 'science side' - getting us to expose what any 'educated person' can see is a hollow sham.

Trying to get KF to admit he's a douche is impossible, but getting him to show what a douche he is, complete with bullet points - piece of cake! Meantime, someone like Joe is a past master at provoking a response. One of his stupid, repetitive points is trigger enough to try and give a sensible answer from a scientific standpoint - even though you know who you're talking to, and what you might as well be doing instead. I think it is the troll-ey attitude, rather than the fundamental wrongness of the arguments or any belief/desire that minds may be changed, that sucks me in.

I don't think I'm doing anything with any wider import than joining a debating society.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

If I am wrong, and internetting tards has a tangible social benefit, then I want tax credit. Help Me Obama!

Keiths says (and I summarized but don't think misrepresented!)

Keiths de-tarded a long time ago. Keiths thinks it is good to de-tard. We should encourage others to de-tard.

I have said I de-tarded and I think it is good. I am questioning the basis of the suggestion that we should encourage others to de-tard.

Glen said

Quote

It does appear that atheism has at least gained energy from the internet, but not so clear that it has especially gained much for science or shown much more than that a lot of them aren't much better than fundamentalists.

word

"gained for science" is kinda squishy! i can at least search for science much more easily because of the internet.

leaving aside the question of whether it is "good" for someone to de-tard (possibly as a result of internetting with tards), we only have two examples from the Time Of The Swamp of this happening at all. We would have to conclude that de-tard because of anti-tard internetting is extremely rare, even if under-reported for some reason.

Quote

Not that I care, I'm just godless, not really concerned about others' godlessness

I agree. I asked, isn't encouraging others to de-tard, if that is my internetting objective, being concerned about others' godlessness?

it might be!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

1) It gives you access to resources and you can discuss or see discussed tard arguments that otherwise would be difficult for an unlearned person.2) It exposes fallacies in the tards. Sure one might not fall immediately but at least he is exposed to a truthful argument and people fundamentally are suckers for the truth.3) It personally helped me in debating on other forums to help detard some people or at least initiate them on the path to detardation.4) It has helped me to learn alot more about biology and evolution in general.5) It's plain fun!

Also I think that it is important to note that there are many shades of tard, deep tard is perhaps not saveable, but lightly exposed tard is very saveable. And for all tards just the fact of presenting another verifiable opinion (unlike theirs) could be the spark to enlightment. Remember deep tards have to lie...

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

1 Hell Yeah2. It does but I will never agree that "people fundamentally are suckers for the truth". In fact I would argue that "people fundamentally are suckers for tard"3. Maybe, but even if it's true that you are pushing tards towards de-tard, is that a good thing. If so, why?4. Hell Yeah5. SHIT yeah

do you have any examples of a verifiable de-tard event where the de-tard occurred as a dependent outcome of internetting tards?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Since people are confessing their personal de-tard experiences, I might as well jump in.

Some time around 1956, (when I was 11) Life Magazine ran a series called the Epic of Man, which included a discussion of human evolution. By coincidence I was in confirmation class in the Episcopal Church. My older sister helpfully informed me that the age for this class had been moved down so as to catch kids before they -- I'm not sure what she said here, but the meaning I remember was -- before they caught on. This is important because it is indicative of my family's lack of commitment to religious inerrancy.

There was a period of a few months where I toyed with the notion that fossils were tricks played by Satan. I found a paperback in the supermarket titled Religion Made Simple. (The Made Simple series was the precursor to the For Dummies series.)

So I read a brief outline of all the world's major religions and concluded I was a pantheist. That was pretty much the end of any belief in the details of revealed religion. This was by age 12. Because my family didn't push belief, I had nothing to rebel against, and I never developed any hostility to religion. I just take it as something like politics, only not as important.

I didn't think seriously about the creationism debate until I encountered the Gould articles in Natural History. I ran into them within a few months after they started. Since then I've been hooked.

I did have a college class in History of Science, which spent a few weeks on Darwin and Wallace, but creationism wasn't on the table.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

2. †It does but I will never agree that "people fundamentally are suckers for the truth". †In fact I would argue that "people fundamentally are suckers for tard"3. †Maybe, but even if it's true that you are pushing tards towards de-tard, is that a good thing. †If so, why?4. †Hell Yeah5. †SHIT yeah

do you have any examples of a verifiable de-tard event where the de-tard occurred as a dependent outcome of internetting tards?

Quote

2. It does but I will never agree that "people fundamentally are suckers for the truth". In fact I would argue that "people fundamentally are suckers for tard"

No I think people who fall for the tard argument are mostly ignorant and lazy so they are happy to live their merry little lives in the belief that all has been created. Let's face it, the tards have all the answers. It's easy. Science is hard work and you don't have all the answers.It's only when one starts seeing that little things don't add up and has the courage to dig further that one is on the road to detardation.

Quote

3. Maybe, but even if it's true that you are pushing tards towards de-tard, is that a good thing. If so, why?

Well none of us would care at all if all religious fanatics would just say, "just ignore reality, you'll never find a dammed clue to anything there, you got to just believe." (Which worked fine till around the 19th century) The problem is they are saying science is out to lie, their argument is: reality is telling you the truth you just got to see it our way (which is: ignore anything and everything that doesn't agree with what we think the old book says.)

So is it right to wake Neo up from the Matrix?

Quote

do you have any examples of a verifiable de-tard event where the de-tard occurred as a dependent outcome of internetting tards?

Yes my brother who was getting sucked into Jehovas witnesses sect and at least 4 other people that were on the their forum.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

We are, for the most part, not isolated †and independent thinkers. We live in families and communities, and we tend to be careful about expressing thoughts that are antithetical to the community's. I hate drawing political parallels, but many types of communities promote an Us vs Them mindset. Political parties, unions, churches, sports teams. I think of the governing principle as tribalism.

For a creationist to question faith means apostasy and excommunication. Possibly the loss of family and friends. It is not simply an intellectual exercise like understanding calculus or electronics.

This is why creationists can become competent engineers and technicians. These activities can be compartmentalized. They are not threatening unless they conflict with tribal demands.

This is why many Catholics can accept common descent, old earth, and most of evolution. Because after a long history of conflict with science, the Catholic church has become somewhat careful about disagreeing with well established findings. The tribal norms do not demand science denial.

I suspect this tribal phenomenon is why some atheists become evangelical atheists. The pain of separation from family or friends promotes a sense that the abandoned faith is not merely wrong, but evil. I never experienced that separation, and my lack of religion is not accompanied by strong emotions.

Edited by midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2012,14:12

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

I think that there is another useful function of ATBC is that it keeps the UD inmates insane. Don't forget that prior to Dover the MSM and quite a few of the chattering classes took ID seriously. Half of the articles on the PT was bemoaning bad journalism. Dover put paid to this and relegated ID to the creationists.

Now some unfortunate theist might meet one of the UDers on another forum and might half convince them the ID is Real science and not creationism. However, visiting UD and seeing the anti-materialism rants would quickly show them that ID is just creationism.

If they weren't goaded by us they might be able to maintain a pseudo-scientific facade.

well, what got me thinking about this was the near total absence of de-tarding events in the blog cloud associated with PT, TO, ATBC, UD, TT, etc etc

That, and Joe Felsenstein and Mark Frank smelling each other's queefs at TSZ like there are genuine criticisms at UD when we all know that it's a hick backwater of the internet known for authoritarian dramas and windowdressing tranmaws and dead psuedoscientific theories

many of you have provide reasons why 1) we might consider de-tarding to be "good" or desirable (because the truth is better than a lie, de-tarded people might behave in ways we value) or 2) †internetting tards is a good thing for you (makes you sharp, you've learned a lot, it's more fun than beating puppies simply for enjoying the sense of power, etc.).

but that's not what i am looking for. †i agree, in principle, that internetting tards should yield de-tarding and that there are many reasons that de-tarding events might yield favorable social outcomes....

but DO THEY?

We don't see de-tarding. †Why? †midwifetoad has a plausible explanation above here, that de-tarding might be cloaked (not reported) †or stifled (flowers but doesn't fruit) due to social stigma.

but this is the internet. †shouldn't we see some anon de-tarding, since the stigma is more or less removed when you are anon? †

Think of all the creationists who have left here, vanquished, leaking from the puncture wounds of dozens of teeth. †None of them ever said "Golly gee you assholes are right about a few things thanks for straightening me out"

None that I know of.

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 27 2012,18:27

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

but this is the internet. †shouldn't we see some anon de-tarding, since the stigma is more or less removed when you are anon? †

Think of all the creationists who have left here, vanquished, leaking from the puncture wounds of dozens of teeth. †None of them ever said "Golly gee you assholes are right about a few things thanks for straightening me out"

I'll repeat my two points: †1) detardation is almost always a gradual process, and 2) there is rarely a single, isolated cause.

#1 means that you won't see detardation in the immediate aftermath of an Internet discussion, even if that discussion had a detardative impact. †(Plus the fact that even pseudonymous commenters are loathe to admit error.)

#2 means that you'll rarely find ex-tards identifying a single reason for their detardation. †In my case, I credit conversations with friends (including the Mormon I mentioned earlier), voracious reading, and just plain thinking about the issues. †They all contributed. †

You typically hear people say things like "I just came to realize over time that my position didn't hold up to scrutiny." †What they don't say is "On September 27th at UD, Erasmus FCD defeated my last argument in favor of intelligent design and I became a Darwinist." †That doesn't mean that your argument didn't have an impact.

I think a well-presented argument on the Internet can be just as effective, and sometimes even more effective, than the same argument in a book. †More effective because: a) Some tards will never pick up the book, so if they don't see the argument online, they'll never see it; b) When they're reading a book, they can come up with a bogus counterargument, and there's no one to push back; online, there is give-and-take; and c) an argument is more persuasive when you see that neither you nor your friends and allies are able to poke holes in it.

Let me stress yet again that I think Internet debates are primarily for fun. †I just think that if we're going to all the trouble of debating in the first place, we might as well do it well and with some care. †It might just help somebody.

A tard is a terrible thing to waste.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

It would be interesting to be able to check up on all the past UDidiots, the ones that have gone missing. I wonder if any of them have detarded and slunk away in embarrassment at ever having been sucked into that mess.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

It would be interesting to be able to check up on all the past UDidiots, the ones that have gone missing. I wonder if any of them have detarded and slunk away in embarrassment at ever having been sucked into that mess.

Yeah, I have often wondered about Lee Bowen. He was a regular on UD. He once showed on my blog and disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter.

PS: Never try to post a picture when using a cell phone to comment

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

It would be interesting to be able to check up on all the past UDidiots, the ones that have gone missing. I wonder if any of them have detarded and slunk away in embarrassment at ever having been sucked into that mess.

Yeah, I have often wondered about Lee Bowen. He was a regular on UD. He once showed on my blog and disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter.

It would be interesting to be able to check up on all the past UDidiots, the ones that have gone missing. I wonder if any of them have detarded and slunk away in embarrassment at ever having been sucked into that mess.

Yeah, I have often wondered about Lee Bowen. He was a regular on UD. He once showed on my blog and disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter.

I was thrilled. I had not expected to receive a second fellowship, especially after all the good blessings I had received my final semester of school. †It reminded me that the Lord can make your path straight when you follow him and that he's always faithful to provide for all needs.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

It would be interesting to be able to check up on all the past UDidiots, the ones that have gone missing. I wonder if any of them have detarded and slunk away in embarrassment at ever having been sucked into that mess.

i suppose in my model de-tarding comes with admitting it out loud. and i suppose that i think de-tarding is more or less inevitable for some people and more or less impossible for some people (part of the reason why i think internetting the tard has little or no effect on how many people de-tard)

there may be folks who have de-tarded who have bounced from these hallowed walls of these hallowed halls, but none have returned to mention it.

and i think that they would. because you would, and everyone else would. if you've been here at all then you appreciate that sort of thing.

i don't think it really happens. but i want to be wrong!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I think that a meaningful success of detarding, or at least in disillusioning, the more science-type Christians who once had hopes for ID, has occurred. †And that has been important in isolating ID into a few pockets of yes-men here and there. †Here's this from Darrell Falk (Biologos, in case anyone doesn't know):

Quote

There are few things that we would like more than this. Johnnyb is right. We are almost on the same page in so many respects. Many of the leaders in evolutionary creation have been tangentially associated with the ID movement. Bill Dembksi asked me to be an ISCID Fellow and I accepted almost 10 years ago. About 4 years ago, I asked to have my name removed.

I recently attended a meeting with a small group of leaders of the TE/EC perspective. Someone asked for a show of hands of those who attended the ďMere ChristianityĒ conference in 1996 at Biola. Several raised their hands.

So why did we become disillusioned? Thatís the question Iíll leave unanswered right now. However, my prayer would be that John 17 will yet become a reality given that we have so much in common.

I recall Dembski posting--I believe it was on UD--once about someone he met up with after a while of not seeing him(?) who admitted that he'd tired of ID, because of a lack of any real research prospects coming from it (from sketchy memory, understand). †Dembski even seemed to ask some right questions in that post, before yet again ignoring the fact that ID has never been and never will be science.

Pointing out ID's failures has to have helped to disillusion thinking people re ID, but again I have no idea what role web criticisms have had, let alone comments on the various fora. †You'd like to think that people could see through pseudoscience without much trouble, yet it's not clear that they would, and I rather suspect that at least the more scholarly criticisms of ID on the net and elsewhere must have helped. †It's always hard, of course, to disentangle the myriad factors leading to outright detardation, or even to mere disillusionment after a period of hope.

One question I find myself asking is whether there is anyone in the creationist/ID camp who can write an accurate, coherent description of evolution as understood by biologists. I haven't seen one.

By contrast, Darwin rather consistently put forth the strongest opposition case before beginning his argument. This is simply an indication of confidence and personal character.

The day I see an ID advocate begin his presentation †by forcefully presenting the case for evolution is the day I begin to worry.

That's also one of my "problems". Creationists insist on criticizing and rejecting something they don't understand and knows extremely little about. And when they think they know, most of the time they are wrong.

They won't educate themselves in the subject. I think they find the subject frightening; it might have consequences they are not ready to face. For some, like what it would do to them, $$$-wise.

One question I find myself asking is whether there is anyone in the creationist/ID camp who can write an accurate, coherent description of evolution as understood by biologists. I haven't seen one.

By contrast, Darwin rather consistently put forth the strongest opposition case before beginning his argument. This is simply an indication of confidence and personal character.

The day I see an ID advocate begin his presentation †by forcefully presenting the case for evolution is the day I begin to worry.

I think that while that's possible on paper, on the ground it's just never going to happen. In order to be able to forcefully present the case for evolution, one almost has to understand the nature and value of evidence, and one who understands the nature and value of evidence is going to see right through the tard.

The only way I see your scenario happening is in the case of a flat-out con man, milking the rubes a la "Buy my book". Behe may fall into this category, but he's never going to go down your road for fear of losing customers. So again, possible on paper, but ain't gonna happen.

And to be clear, the reverse is not necessarily true. The "Buy my book" con does not necessarily entail the understanding of the nature and value of evidence, or of evolution. I'd put Dembski in this category. He knows he's peddling bullshit, but he's never impressed me as someone who understands the meaning of evidence. Anything is evidence if enough people say it's evidence. Someday, IDC will be REAL SCIENCETM!

But the con may not even imply seeing through the tard.

O'Leary is an interesting case. She's conning the hell out of the rubes, but I don't think she sees through the tard, either. It's not so much that she believes it all, it's more that she just doesn't fucking care. She parrots, she sells books. In the end, Jesus is happy and her pocketbook is full. Good enough. Who cares about understanding the arguments, right?

Or this whole post of mine could be so much pre-coffee, faux-intellectual, pseudo-philosophic wankery, a bit of self-indulgent entertainment to stir the brain cells from slumber before I head to Fort Fisher to chase some Melanerpes erythrocephalus with a Canon at dawn.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

In the long run, matters of truth are always functions of social relations. People are moved to change their mindsóor to refuse to do soódepending upon the social resonance of what they are being asked to change. Who advocates or adopts the change is as important as what the change itself is. [...] Whose claim to enhanced social authority was strengthened if the new claim was acceptedí? Whose beliefs and practices would now be denigrated as foolish or superstitious? Whose assertion about the nature of God would be affirmed or denied?

Sarah Gronim, Everyday Nature: Knowledge of the Natural World in Colonial New York.

One of the ways that Creationists can hold out against an overwhelming scientific consensus against them is by turning the argument from a ďfact vs. fictionĒ debate to an ďus vs. themĒ debate. The argument becomes less a matter of evidence and reason and more of a matter of competing authorities and personal identities.

One question I find myself asking is whether there is anyone in the creationist/ID camp who can write an accurate, coherent description of evolution as understood by biologists. I haven't seen one.

By contrast, Darwin rather consistently put forth the strongest opposition case before beginning his argument. This is simply an indication of confidence and personal character.

The day I see an ID advocate begin his presentation †by forcefully presenting the case for evolution is the day I begin to worry.

I wouldn't worry ... if they understand evolution and still offer a convincing case for an alternative, then I would be obliged to put my road-dusty materialist nag out to pasture. I am very interested in what is true (to the extent that my feeble synapses can discern that). Contrary to what those fucking morons who shout 'ideology!' think. If we live in a God-created universe, and the only possible way a universe could exist is by being God-created, then living inside that universe with a conviction that it can't be so would be just embarrassing.

But ... in all honesty and sincerity, I don't think it is so. Not just because I understand evolution.

I am interested in how many here testify to some kind of fundamentalist history. For me, I have simply never bought the God idea, so no emotional struggle was required to understand science. I think I asked him for a hamster once - and got one. But I am perhaps less qualified than most to comment on the notion of 'de-tard', since it is not an experience I have been through.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

I think that it is a mistake to expect the vocal tards to change. I read somewhere that once a person has vocalised their position it is very hard to get them to shift. I think it is the lurkers who are the ones who get deconverted or even get stopped from falling into trap in thinking that ID is anything but bad theology